No offence to the Blair's children -- whom I couldn't even name except for baby Leo until reading this article -- but they are no William or Harry, no matter how good looking they may be or who their parents are.

If Princess Michael, who is married to the Queen's cousin, can't get her children the same protection (or attention) as William and Harry receive, then who are the Blair children in the grand scheme of thiings?

Thanks for the article Wymanda.

I agree. I know this topic is about The Queen's relationship to Blair, but the Blairs honestly don't think that their children are on the same level as the royal children do they. William and Harry, and Beatrice and Eugenie to a lesser extent, are worldwide celebrities known everywhere. I don't even know the Blair's children's names and I definitely wouldn't recognize them walking down the street. This, of course, is just me, but I doubt the press will forgo a story about William and his girlfrined to talk about Tony Blair's son and a girl he is spotted with. Come on, who is who here. Once Blair is out, his children wont even be in the press, they hardly are now. This is of course no offense to them, but William especially, and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie will be royal and in the spotlight the rest of their lives.

On security, I think the Royal Security is more urgent than Blairs. I say this because the Royals are much more high profile. Buckingham Palace is one of, if not the most recognizable residence in the world, it is the country's favorite building (this info was put out by a poll this week). If something happens to the royals, I think it would have a much bigger affect on the public and their feelings than if something happened to Blair. I agree that government wise, Blair is much more important, but the question is, would a terrorist rather target The Queen, who is Queen of so many countries, represents the Church of England, is Head of the Commonwealth, and a person who is a respected worldwide icon, or would they target Blair, a controvesial head of government. The Queen and the royal family are much more of a terrorist target than Blair and his family simply because they are 50 times more famous and recognizable worldwide. I am not, however, saying that Blair is not a target and needs no protection.

Julian

10-09-2004 05:18 PM

I doubt Princess Michael's kids need protection or that anyone outside royal watching circles much even recognises their faces, so what's the relevance of citing them? Blair's kids are of more passing concern at the moment because it was Blair who made the political decision to go into Iraq. It's also been said innumerable times that the highest target country for terrorism's next big incident is the U.K. I thought that was rather obvious. It's got nothing to do with being on the same "level" as William and Harry and everything to do with who would be a target for terrorism. The Queen already has all the protection she needs. Political leaders and their families in these times are a different matter. The world has changed you know!!

wymanda

10-09-2004 11:12 PM

The fact that any political leader would use their children to gain votes really concerns me. Some years ago Australia had a Prime Minister with a young family and he & his wife made the decision to leave their children in their own home in the care of their grandparents. The children were kept right out of the public eye during their fathers term in office. The separation from their parents doesn't seem to have done them any harm, the son is actor Julian McMahon!

I feel sorry for the children of younger men who put themselves into political leadership roles. The childhood of these young people is lost through the intrusive media attention. The onus is on the parents to protect them and not to exploit them for political gain.

Genevieve

10-10-2004 12:07 AM

Interesting little tid bit about Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck). I never knew that he had parents of such political roots/background -- which goes to prove your point I guess!

What I don't care for about the Blairs (among other things) is that when Tony Blair was initially campaigning for public office of 10 Downing Street it was apparently okay to put his (then) 3 children in the spotlight in order to promote/enhance his image. Tony and Cherie Blair courted the media attention on behalf of their children at that time. But now that his children are (unfortunately) suffering from the public attention he is suddenly going to slam the media and demand increased protection for them. He can't use his children one moment and reneg the next moment.

Whenever anyone chooses to enter public office, they are presumably adults and have chosen such a public life and with it the scrutiny for their decisions and actions. But their children have made no such decision or choice and shouldn't be thrust into the spotlight because of the choices their parent(s) have made.

I don't really think the Blair children are more at risk than William or Harry or anyone else for that matter because of terrorism. The unfortunate truth about terrorism is that it can affect anyone at anytime -- whether you are the son of a prince, the daughter of a prime minister, the daughter of a doctor or the son of a Starbucks server. Their father made certain political decisions that put not only his own children at risk but everybody's children at risk. How come Jane Smith down the road isn't asking for increased protection for her children? Don't her children deserve it more since her children likely attend a public school with minimal to non-existent security rather than the elite, private school the Blair children attend?

The Queen may have all the protection she needs but that is not accounting for the protection of her children and her grandchildren.The Queen having a certain level of protection does not necessarily equate with the fact that William and Harry or Beatrice and Eugenie or Zara and Peter Phillips have the same level of protection. Just as Tony Blair having a certain level of protection does not mean that his children have the same amount.

Julian

10-10-2004 12:55 AM

First of all, the person down the street and their kids are not the Blairs, or we would be talking about them and not the Blairs.

Secondly, William and Harry and the rest of em have all the protection that can be given them under the circumstances. But if they have no protection or insufficient protection, that is the fault of their grandmother whose job it is to see to that.

The original question wasn't about whose got protection, nor whether Blair ever exploited his kids. If he did, then I for one do not think he did so any more than other politicians do nowadays. Personally, I don't think people should have to make an either/or choice about their kids. Imagine dumping off your kids somewhere for 15 years (3 x terms of PM) just because you want to "protect" them? Sounds more to me like you can't be bothered to make any time for them and you found a convenient excuse for child neglect. The Blairs no matter what else have a perfect human right to keep their family unit as intact as they can manage.

As to whether Blair is one of the worst PMs I would say yes, but obviously for completely different reasons than the original poster and others who have posted since think. You want more of the same in Iraq (Oz has just proved it), which is what the two Howards and others would gladly do being Bush's even bigger poodles, I don't.

Georgia

10-15-2004 04:05 PM

While I believe Tony Blair has done some good things since he came to power the complete disrespect he shows to HM is unforgivable. He has to remember that he was just a baby when the Queen came to the throne. Her experience is second to none. The PM doesn't have an advisor that has experienced first hand all the HM has and instead of giving her her place and seeking her counsel he ignores her advice and expertise.

Reina

10-29-2004 05:53 PM

I am an American and so maybe I don't have the right to say this, but I love Tony Blair. You guys are so unappreciative of what you have. And think of the alternatives-the conservatives? They are as old and crusty as uuhh some of those buildings. and maybe he does things w/o consulting the queen, but he is still respectful of her and the institution. and I feel so sorry for their kids. They should absolutely get equal protection. Hello! The guy is running the country! And I am sorry, but why should he get the Queen's advice every week? Maybe once a month. But he and his govt. are dealing w/ some serious stuff. He hasn't have time for that.

A.C.C.

10-29-2004 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reina

I am an American and so maybe I don't have the right to say this, but I love Tony Blair. You guys are so unappreciative of what you have. And think of the alternatives-the conservatives? They are as old and crusty as uuhh some of those buildings. and maybe he does things w/o consulting the queen, but he is still respectful of her and the institution. and I feel so sorry for their kids. They should absolutely get equal protection. Hello! The guy is running the country! And I am sorry, but why should he get the Queen's advice every week? Maybe once a month. But he and his govt. are dealing w/ some serious stuff. He hasn't have time for that.

What do you mean he hasn't time for that. It is The Queen's constitutional right as monarch to be consulted. Every one of Her other 9 prime ministers seemed to have had time, yet Blair doesn't, please. Furthermore, if Blair was smart, he would consult The Queen, especially on constitutional issues like reformation of the House of Lords and such. She has been in that position as Queen for over 52 yrs. He wasn't even born when HM came to the throne, yet he knows more than She does. He may run the government, but that doesn't mean that The Queen, as monarch, does not have the right to know what is going on in the government. And the reason Blair's children don't get the same treatment as the Royal children is because they are not public figures and will not be public figures. The royal children are public figures and will be for life. They shouldn't get the same treatment because they are not in the same position.

Reina

10-30-2004 01:37 AM

Look at this time it should not be about position it should be about safety. and why can't the Queen get some separate powers so she can rule on that reformation of the House of Lords and such. I mean come on screw the position stuff for a while when it pertains to innocent kids of the P.M. Geeeeezzzz
And if the Queen wants to know what is going on in the govt. she should watch Question Time. It is a great show to watch
OK that was mean. But I am not saying that he should never see her. I think he should see her once a month maybe twice a month.
I am telling you that he has way bigger issues to deal w/!

BeatrixFan

05-29-2007 11:06 PM

The Queen and her Prime Ministers

After a fascinating chat about the Queen and her PMs, I thought a topic was in order. Here are the PMs of the Her Majesty's reign and what they appeared to believe about the monarchy;

A staunch supporter of the monarchy, Sir Winston had been devout in his support of King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. His allegiance to the monarchy was unwaivering and he was said to be devastated by the death of King George VI. His relationship with the Queen was very strong and he once complained to his private doctor that he was facing sleepless nights whilst she was away on tour. The Queen thought so much of him that not only did she attend his funeral in 1965, but she gave a rare TV interview as a tribute to him.

Anthony Eden was appointed Prime Minister by the Queen in 1955 and immediately called a General Election. His premiership was brief but his relationship with the Queen was apparantly good and he was a monarchist. He died in 1977, the year of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee. The Queen was apparantly unhappy with the way he handled Suez but then again, who wasn't?

Macmillan was an old Etonian and in an interview given before his death, said that he was a supporter of the Queen and her role. The Profumo Affair did him no favours but it was eventually a mess-up by doctors that led to his resignation. They told him he had fatal cancer and would be dead within a few months. He actually lived until 1986. His resignation put the Queen in a terrible predicament as she had to choose his successor. She took Macmillan's advice and appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home much to the fury of Rab Butler. It had put the Queen in such a bad position that the Conservatives changed their leadership election process shortly after.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home KT, PC, Baron Home of the Hirsel
Prime Minister from 1963-1964Conservative and Unionist

He was the last PM to be chosen by the British monarch directly and as a result was grateful to the Queen. As he stayed in office for just 1 year, it's unknown what his views on the monarchy were.

His relationship with the Queen was apparantly good although Barbara Castle often said that she believed the Queen was worried about the position of the monarchy under socialists. Wilson was quite supportive of the Queen and in an interview called her "a great treasure of the British people". He was constantly paranoid and believed he was going to be toppled in a coup by the establishment. There were rumours that the Queen Mother had been approached to convince the Queen to take absolute power and that Lord Mountbatten was preparing an army force to seize Downing Street and that he had the Queen's support. The Queen is said to have been deeply unhappy with his abuse of the Honours System after the "Lavender List" appeared but no evidence exists that plans for such a coup existed.

His predecessor was also his successor. He admired the Queen greatly and came to rely on their weekly meetings. Eventually he was brought down by a group who wanted Margaret Thatcher to be his replacement. She was successful in replacing Heath and he never forgave her. His relationship with the Queen was said to be "healthy".

Not Prime Minister for very long but during his premiership, he had the role of organising the Queen's Silver Jubilee. He was apparantly thrilled by the honour and even suggested that the gift from the Cabinet be a portrait of himself. He was a monarchist.

The Queen's longest serving and first (and to date) only female Prime Minister. Being the same age as the Queen, there was an expectation that the two women wouldn't get on but apparantly their relationship grew closer as the years went by. Lady Thatcher is said to have upset the Queen a few times, most notably over the Fagin break-in and Thatcher's blocking of the Queen's attendance at a Commonwealth meeting. Despite this, Margaret Thatcher has written glowing tributes to the Queen in her books and is a staunch monarchist. The Queen attended Margaret Thatcher's 80th birthday party in 2006, as did the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Alexandra of Kent.

He inherited a slightly poisoned chalice but his relationship with the Queen didn't seem to suffer. She recently made him a Knight of the Garter. Though the Queen apparantly knew of his affair with Edwina Currie, she always remained amiable to him and his premiership seemed to be monarchy-friendly.

Tony Blair
Prime Minister from 1997-2007Labour

He'll leave soon.

--------------------

So, what do you make of the Queen's relationship with her Prime Ministers? Who has the Queen got on well with and how should a Prime Minister treat the monarch? Your views please on the Queen and her Prime Ministers.

Elspeth

05-29-2007 11:50 PM

Erm - don't you need a slightly more informative section on Mr Blair, especially given the way he's perceived as having been the biggest threat to the monarchy of any of her PMs?

Useful list otherwise, and a good basis for a thread.

wbenson

05-29-2007 11:53 PM

I've always read that the Queen got on quite well with Harold Wilson. I recall reading that their 30 minute audiences typically lasted an hour or more.

Royal Fan

05-30-2007 02:10 PM

Tony Blair A Threat?! How so??? and how do you think Gordon Brown will get on with her seems a Strong Monarchist, I Was at first Cameron Supporter (Although ive Always liked Blair)

Elspeth

05-30-2007 09:07 PM

Tony Blair has done quite a lot of things over the years to undercut the contribution of the monarch to the government, and (if the broadsheet newspapers are to be believed) the first that Buckingham Palace heard about some of them was from the media because they were done without consultation.

CasiraghiTrio

06-09-2007 09:57 AM

I'm sure of equal fascination is how she as Princess Elizabeth got on with the PMs who were in office during her father's reign. While her contact with them must have been rather shallow and formal, perhaps there are some interesting things there. For example, I wonder how she felt about Attlee (sp?). Apparently, her father did not like him at all (not surprising, as George VI was supposed to have been rather Conservative) but it is interesting to me that Attlee was surprisingly awed by the monarchy. BeatrixFan pointed out in another thread that Labour PMs have not always been as hostile as one might expect, and Attlee seems to fit in that compartment, no?
I remember recently (?) when the Queen unveiled a statue of Churchill, she was standing in front of it and looked rather emotional. It must have been a powerful moment for her. Whatever one's feelings about the man, "the Churchill years" were a dramatic time of her life.

CasiraghiTrio

06-09-2007 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Tony Blair has done quite a lot of things over the years to undercut the contribution of the monarch to the government, and (if the broadsheet newspapers are to be believed) the first that Buckingham Palace heard about some of them was from the media because they were done without consultation.

That's very sad. I might be empathetic of a PM who doesn't necessarily fawn over the Queen, but to actively undercut her..... That is very unfortunate.
I think in Britain you guys have a very good choice with Cameron and Brown. They are very different, obviously, but I like them both, to be honest. I'm undecided about some things re: Cameron but that's not the topic of the thread, so suffice it to say, though undecided, I am still impressed by both of them for various reasons. I think in a way you can't go wrong with these two.

BeatrixFan

06-09-2007 12:04 PM

Gordon Brown is a steaming great republican. He'll probably sideline the Queen as much as he can - basically, it's anyone who gets in the way with him.

Royal Fan

06-09-2007 12:13 PM

Can The Monarchy them survive Brown with their Dignity Intact? I Was sure he was a Monarchist

BeatrixFan

06-09-2007 12:17 PM

It'll be a wonder if they survive at all. Brown is likely to surround himself with fellow republicans. Then again, I give Brown 6 months at the helm at the most. He's not popular at all.

Duke of Marmalade

06-09-2007 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

It'll be a wonder if they survive at all. Brown is likely to surround himself with fellow republicans. Then again, I give Brown 6 months at the helm at the most. He's not popular at all.

I couldn't agree more. Brown stands for everything that Blair did including backing his decision to go to Iraq. Blair survived that long because he was excellent in presenting himself and doing speeches. Brown is lacking that charisma and is just boring - and a bit scruffy so women don't like him. My bet is that the next elected PM being invited by the Queen is David Cameron. He stands for a change as Labour was in power for too long, and, as Blair, he can present himself very well. Not as professional yet as Blair of course, but his time will come.

Don't want to sound too political here - it's just an opinion as I won't be entitled to vote anyway :flowers: